Why shouldn't there be a tax break for married couples? It's been that way since the beginning of time, so why should it change? The only modification that could ever be made is that homosexual civil unions should be recognized as marriages and thus receive a tax break. But really, there is NO REASON why there shouldn't be a tax break for the marrieds.
Married couples typically have greater expenses because of their children. This is compounded if one of the parents doesn't work so that they can stay home and actually raise their children instead of letting them rot in a daycare center. So single people have one worker and one person to pay for. Married people often have only one provider and several peoples expenses to pay for.
None of the above affirmative answers actually defend why married couples should get a tax break. They only say married couples should be taxed together and that it's always been this way so why not continue. That doesn't answer the question at hand, which is what makes a married couple living in the same household (presumably) more deserving of a tax deduction than a couple that is not married and living together? It helps to look at when the marriage deduction was introduced. Back then, most families had a single wage earner and once a couple married, the wage earner's pay had to be spent on the living costs for two people instead of one. Once children are introduced to the equation, the income has to stretch even further. A single person making $80k is "wealthier" than an income of $80k for a a married couple with two kids. The tax deduction for married couples then became a fixture in the U.S. Tax code, which is why it seems so normal today.
Married couples live together, spend together, and they've legally combined their assets into one. Of course they should be taxed, and get tax breaks, together.
Generally, they are counted as one household for pretty much everything else. From financial transactions to insurance to child care, they are counted as one entity. Why would taxes be any different? To have it other wise is pure insanity.
Married couples have combined their assets. Even with couples who both work you have to take into consideration that one of the paychecks will go to pay childcare. They are not entitled to two sets of health insurance. They do not and many cannot, function as a household alone. If this is the case, then a tax break becomes necessary for the family to continue to function.
If a married couple has raised children (future taxpayers) with the associated extra costs, then I can understand giving them a tax break. But without having had children, there is NO difference between 2 single people who decide to marry, and single people. As said before, they already have huge savings in being able to share the cost of a house, utilities, vehicles, etc. Single people have to pay more tax to fund this freebee for others, who, again, didn't have to pay for kids.
Married people have a combined income to pay mortgage and other living expenses. Single people only have one income. Married people generally have children and get more tax breaks. Single people have to pay taxes for public schools. Single people are paying for married peoples life style choices. That's insane.
Our country is broke. Period. That is not up to debate. The only thing that is keeping our country afloat is the reserve status of our currency. The dollar is not going to remain the reserve currency forever. We cannot afford to give, what is essentially a useless subsidy, to people who are merely joined by legal documents. It is utterly stupid and fiscally irresponsible. We shouldn't give subsidies to people with kids either, for the same reasons. It is simply unfair that single people, unmarried couples, and people without children have to subsidize the selfishness of married couples.
It is well known that singles have higher outgoings than married couples per person. Any concerns regarding. Children are independant of marriage and should be assessed independantly.
Why should singles be both lonely AND financially disadvantaged.
It would be far more appropriate to review the entire system than blindly follow what has passed before. It is no longer relevant to the country or it's people.
I live with my significant other and am not sure if I believe in marriage though we are very committed. Yet we don't receive a tax break even though we are ONE household, and may choose to have children together someday. I know we would get a tax break together for children, but we still wouldn't for "marriage". What even is marriage other than a tradition, a legal document, and a commitment? We're committed, why should we have to have a legal document and have to have the same traditions in a free country to get the same privileges? It just doesn't make sense. It's probably because there is more money to be made off of married couples for when some get divorced.
Why should married couples get a tax break that unmarried couples are not entitled to? There is nothing specific about marriage that should make couples pay less. There should be no tax break for married couples, they should pay all the same taxes as everyone else. They can still qualify for children tax credits or others.